SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Coral reefs are considered one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet and are dying at alarming rates around the world. Scientists attribute coral bleaching and ultimately massive coral death to a number of environmental stressors, in particular, warming water temperatures due to climate change.
A study published in the international journal Marine Biology, reveals what's really killing coral reefs. With 30 years of unique data from Looe Key Reef in the lower Florida Keys, researchers from Florida Atlantic University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and collaborators have discovered that the problem of coral bleaching is not just due to a warming planet, but also a planet that is simultaneously being enriched with reactive nitrogen from multiple sources.
Improperly treated sewage, fertilizers and top soil are elevating nitrogen levels, which are causing phosphorus starvation in the corals, reducing their temperature threshold for "bleaching." These coral reefs were dying off long before they were impacted by rising water temperatures. This study represents the longest record of reactive nutrients and algae concentrations for coral reefs anywhere in the world.
"Our results provide compelling evidence that nitrogen loading from the Florida Keys and greater Everglades ecosystem caused by humans, rather than warming temperatures, is the primary driver of coral reef degradation at Looe Key Sanctuary Preservation Area during our long-term study," said Brian Lapointe, Ph.D., senior author and a research professor at FAU's Harbor Branch.
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-years-unique-reveal-coral-reefs.html
-- submitted from IRC
Brian E. Lapointe et al. Nitrogen enrichment, altered stoichiometry, and coral reef decline at Looe Key, Florida Keys, USA: a 3-decade study, Marine Biology (2019). DOI: 10.1007/s00227-019-3538-9
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:18PM (5 children)
Yep, depopulation is the key to solving of all kinds of issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @12:31PM (4 children)
Depopulation is an awful plan. It's like those antibacterial soaps that kill 99.99% of germs. Yea, well when they can divide every 20 minutes after 1 day a single survivor can generate 2^72 = 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 new germs.
So you are going to need to keep "depopulating" every couple decades. Let's say you depopulate to get 500 million people. Then within 5 years each woman will have 5 children bringing the pop back up to 1.75 billion. In 5 years!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:26PM
Brilliant
https://www.genolve.com/design/socialmedia/memes?creation=9a3cca7fb6c54e9aa82bb25a6056acd2 [genolve.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 17 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)
Overpopulation is an issue that has plagued life for billions of years before humans appeared. We have identified some of the strategies that life uses for dealing with the problem. One is to rely on external limiting factors, such as prey actually needing predators to control their numbers. Another is a harsh environment. Epidemics enjoy a positive feedback with population levels. The more people there are, and the more crowded things are, the faster an epidemic can spread, and the more lethal it can be.
War is another way. Why do groups of people fight one another? It's crazy stupid risky to participate in a battle, let alone a war. And yet, lethal combat retains a sick glamor. People who start wars have all sorts of convoluted reasons, like that our honor was insulted, or those people over there threaten our way of life, but ultimately it boils down to "this world ain't big enough for the both of us."
The kindest way is just not to have too many babies. Women instinctively do exactly that, if allowed. However, if they are stuck in a patriarchy, then population is all too frequently controlled by war. That's the kind of world these self described "pro-life" social conservatives gun for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18 2019, @02:13AM (1 child)
If women are stuck in a matriarchy, they go extinct.
There have been multiple matriarchies throughout history. They don't exist now. Guess why? Darwin has a theory for it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 18 2019, @02:37AM
Upcoming biotechnologies can enable insular matriarchal or patriarchal groups to create as many female or male offspring as they want. We will see the creation of a child genetically related to two gay men, or two lesbian women. That could happen within a decade or two, and as long as it is reliable it will sail through regulatory approval, since rejecting it would be considered a homophobic violation of human rights.
It would be improbable to see something like a nation scale matriarchy, but on the commune level it can work just fine. It will be interesting to see.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]